I can understand it, I’m saying your own words don’t support that. For example, you keep talking about how the university can just make it so speakers are invitation only, and they WHY for that that keeps coming up is things like “making sure the speakers have sound judgements” or “not letting random yahoos with bad…

Nobody is saying you’re wrong about that. It’s bizarre that you keep saying the same thing over and over, hoping someone will disagree. Yet here we are.

Too late, I already got my star.

This article clearly outlines some of the very real dangers that stem from curtailing speech, that are happening in your country. Journalists absolutely need to be able to report on government actions that are illegal. These are the bad things that start to happen when you do not have freedom of speech and the press,…

This article clearly outlines some of the very real dangers that stem from curtailing speech, that Y3 should be aware of as they are happening in his home country. Journalists absolutely need to be able to report on government actions that are illegal.

But we all know it was just a bullshit condition intended to distract from the actual conversation so no one notices how wrong you are.

Nah, it’s just the game you play when you know you’ve lost the argument.

But the hilarity in the hypocrisy never stops being funny.

Sounds a lot like your own insincerity demonstrated by a lack of willingness to provide simple quotes so conversations can continue.

Nobody said anything about banning speech that runs contrary to what is objectively correct. -You

Nobody said anything about banning speech that runs contrary to what is objectively correct.

I do know that you value the right of Nazis to hold Nazi rallies and spread Nazi speech in a way that I do not. That’s kind of my whole point: to criticize holding that value. That value is bad. You should stop doing that. -You

Ha ha, you think people who try to kill people shouldn’t be stopped from doing so. Okay!-You

The actual value being upheled, that of free speech, is a good thing.

Which you know you can’t refute on it’s actual merits, which is always why you change it to a support of Nazi’s instead. Ignoring important distinctions is the crutch of every argument you make here.

You are completely ignoring important differences between known and unknown,  and direct and indirect consequences.

You don’t stop someone from speaking because a separate person might decide to get angry about it and take violent action.

I’m not suggesting that people who say “hey, Nazis are bad” should be oppressed. They should not, as they are objectively correct. You’re arguing against something I’m not saying should be done. In fact, you’re arguing against very nearly the exact opposite of what I’m saying.-You

It’s being pointed out to you that restriction of speech can work both ways, which is WHY we don’t do it and WHY it’s a bad idea.

When you say speech can be restricted, you open up the possibility that will include speech you agree with and think is acceptable.

Would you like to know how dumb you sound? “You cannot know the outcome of a murder before it takes place. Blocking it is, therefore, not permissible.”-You

If you already know it’s a MURDER then yes you DO know the outcome! Do YOU know how dumb you sound?

I never even said anything about that in relation to the senior center question. It sounds like you are just blustering because you don’t understand simple concepts that have to be explained to you over and over because you are not getting them.

What is true of Nazi’s is that they espouse racial superiority and segregation. The point that is trying to be made to you is that white people are not the only people that can espouse racial superiority and segregation.

I think if you only think white people can be Nazi’s, then yes, you are wrong about them. If you…